If there is one thing that's really remarkable about human activity in space, it is that there has been almost no intelligent and reflective thought about it. Professor Lavery's book will go down in history as the first book to give an intelligent and extended examination of the "extraterrestrial impulse" which has gotten us to the moon and beyond. Norman Mailer's "Fire on the Moon" is also interesting and useful, but is really from another era; Mailer could never have guessed at how "unearthly" our postmodern world has become. For those of us who grew up in the spaced-out euphoria of America in the 80's, Lavery's book is an indespensible step along the way to an historical self-understanding. Indispensible, that is, if our generation is really interested in understanding itself...

"The echolalia and subvocal signs of the semiotic - what we might call feminine Twinspeak - therefore co-exist with and challenge both the patriarchal canonization of Laura Palmer and its Freudian subtext. (104)"

The above sentence comes from arguably the best of the twelve essays contained within this book, Christy Desmet's "The Canonization of Laura Palmer." She makes some extremely insightful points, but to reach them, you have to wade through pretentious written-with-thesaurus-in-hand idiocy like the preceding paragraph.

In general, those expecting to find opinions on what the Red Room really is, or whether coffee and cherry pie are a metaphor for something deeper, will have to parse through endless masturbatory babble, and for the most part will be ultimately disappointed by the lack of any revelations about the show itself (one notable exception is Angela Hague's interesting "Derationalization of Detection," which delves briefly into what actually happened to Cooper in the Black Lodge).

Some essays, such as Jonathan Rosenbaum's "Bad Ideas..." might simply be re-titled "Why I liked Twin Peaks," as it comes off more like high-brow film criticism than anything else, revealing nothing about the show other than why the writer thought it was good. Ditto Marc Dolan's essay "The Peaks and Valleys...", which contains only speculation as to why the show might have lost its audience. Henry Jenkins' is awful, doing nothing more than chronicling ultimately irrelevant discussions on alt.tv.twinpeaks while the show was airing.

A few of the feminist writers are equally terrible for different reasons. Martha Nochimson's "Desire Under the Douglas Firs..." had potential to be very interesting, but went on a "phallocentric" tangent, and from her we read insights like "The phallic nature of the thumbs up sign, and the phallic incapacity of the Old Bellhop, who cannot stand up straight, are complemented by the visionary presence of The Giant, a phallic presence, as emphasized by the visual foregrounding of The Giant's crotch. (153).

In addition, I fear, some of these writers seem to be a little out of their depth, and readers who are specialists in any of the fields contained within might be able to find numerous mistakes. For instance, in the essay about music (my own area of specialty) Kathryn Kalinak misidentifies leitmotifs, writes musical examples in the wrong key AND mode, and generally reveals herself to be musically illiterate. She also assigns import and symbolism to things that deserve none. She notes that in one scene, "a country and western selection on the jukebox mysteriously disappears for Shelley and Norma's entrance only to reappear a few moments later," citing this as proof that Lynch is trying to make us aware of the line "between illusion and artifice." Nonsense. It was an editing mistake. I could wax philosophical that the chess game between Cooper and Earle (which contained impossible positions/illegal moves) was Lynch trying to symbolically demonstrate any number of things, but it was really just Lynch being lazy, and that's fine.

The essays alone really only merit two stars, but following them "Full of Secrets" has several excellent appendices which contain writing/directorial/acting credits, a Twin Peaks calendar of events, and a complete scene breakdown from the pilot through FWWM, all very well done and useful.

For the rest of the book, well, you've been warned.

David Lavery's book is, beyond any doubt, a book to purchase for any fan of "Twin Peaks" or related Lynch material. This book of essays, focusing on different themes and messages in David Lynch's tv-serial, is most likely the best of its kind on the marked.
Take a mesmorising trip through the fantastic of "Twin Peaks" or go looking for clues to unlocking its strange mysteries - this book will give you all the leads. So whether you are into exploring doubling, postmodern culture, detective fiction, the fantastic, or merely the world of David Lynch, I strongly recommend getting a hold of this book. An amazing a thorough read - even better than the otherwise strong "Weirdsville USA"!!!

great book, but using the term "bad idea" in any of david lynch's works is a "bad idea"! any TWIN PEAKS paraphenalia is a wonderful gift to the world of mystery, questions, and the secrets that are behind them. since the series was left as a secret, then its wonderful that us peaks freaks can still enjoy putting all the TWIN PEAKS puzzle peices together. RELEASE "FIRE WALK WITH ME" DELETED SCENES! HOO HOO HOO!

This book is over-blown, poorly written, and in places utterly nonsensical. I would be hard pressed to say which was worse, the "academics" who are adept at using many words to sat nothing, or the journalists who prove that the use of proper grammar and clear, direct writing are a thing of the past, even among so-called professionals in the field.

For the reader who has not chosen to pursue an advanced degree in Literature, parenthetical remarks such as the Mayor is " . . . incidentally, an avatar of "Richard the Third . . ." or the comment that Buffy inhabits a place that " . . . pretends to be nowhere (which is what "Utopia" originally means) . . ." function as so much verbal filler, as these comments are never expanded upon within, or even tied to, the text.

Many of these essays would fail the "so what" test applied by many graduate professors (anything that could inspire a reader to ask "so what" better supply that answer in short order--and if it doesn't, the remark doesn't add value to the work). I expect better from my undergraduate students.

My initially reaction to the poor editing and grammar use what that it was an impression caused by the use of UK grammar standards, but as I continued to read it became clear that the impression resulted from a general disregard to any grammar standards or word choice logic.

In short, save yourself a few bucks, buy the DVDs, and listen to the writer commentary. Had the authors of the essays in this collection chosen to pay attention to what the Buffy/Angel writers have to say about their work (in the DVDs and in numerous interviews) they wouldn't have had to waste so many trees with these over-analytical studies that do more to impose each essayists aesthetic or political agenda on the subject than to illuminate the deeper themes of the over-all arc of the story line.

In reading this book, I thought I would get a sense of how scholars veiw the television series as a whole. I got that and a whole lot more. Although I did not agree with everything that was said about the series, I found that people didn't think of it as simply a idiotic show with no moral value. People, experts mainly, dig deeper and see the show from a cultural and social stand point.
So basically they agreed with me, in that, Buffy is a television show that has substance and moral values. Even if many in the population don't agree.

Now, let me start by saying that I don't typically read scholarly books about television series. Quite frankly, most of them are just chock-full of flowery, useless speech and precious little actual information or well-argued opinion.

I picked up this book because I'm a huge fan of Buffy and I wanted to see how badly a bunch of academics would mangle the themes and structures Joss & Co. employ on a weekly basis. Odd as this sounds, I was disappointed to find myself greatly enjoying each and every essay.

Now, not each one is a perfect gem and a couple of them made me wonder if the writer had ever actually sat through and enjoyed a single episode, but some of those essays were the most entertaining because they were quite thought-provoking.

I would recommend this book to anyone who's a long-time viewer of the show, regardless of academic experience, although it doesn't hurt to have a B.A. in something under your belt.

This book receives four stars simply because of a few minor grammar and spelling errors. In any other book, I'd let it slide, but this is supposed to be made by real professionals and should be perfect in that regard.

The book "Deny all Knowledge" is one my mom bought me for Christmas, I am 14 years old and one of the biggest X-Files fans on the face of the earth. I found this book VERY hard to understand, yet, I finished it. The words are hard to make out and I don't recommend it to anyone under 16 yrs of age.

It is impossible for any urban dweller not to notice the vast array of merchandising that has sprouted from the success of the television show, "The X-Files". That is, of course, the point. Urban dwellers, aged eighteen- to forty-nine comprise a "quality demographic" in the surveys of advertising executives and have therefore become the contemporary focus of television producers, as we are told by Jimmie Reeves in his essay "Rewriting Popularity", one of the collection edited by David Lavery, professor of English at Middle Tennessee State University.

"Deny all knowledge: Reading the X-Files" is in part an attempt to capture a section of that demographic. However, a swift perusal of other material on offer at your local X-Files vendor (pusher?) reveals that this understated volume might well have been misplaced from its original shelf, nestled between Lacan and Levi-Strauss. There are no photos (save for a semi-abstract 'flying saucer' on the cover), no celebrity interviews, no episode synopses. It seems that this tries, much like the foisting of Gregorian chant on a classically-naïve public, to sneak in some 'highbrow' material on the crest of a wave of immense popularity.

In large part, the cult-nature of the X-Files has been fostered by the presence of an active on-line community, many of whom are academics. It is perhaps to this audience that the volume is aimed. What better way to combine work and play?

The passion of the authors is undeniable and all of the essays display extensive familiarity and understanding of the series. They are not grounded by the need to justify the existence of the X-Files phenomenon, nor are they constrained by the necessity to interweave their subject matter with perceived fan interest.

Leslie Jones' excellent essay on myth and folklore in the X-Files is lightly-tinged with humour while providing a fascinating account of Indo-European mythology. Further gems are found in Reeves, Rogers and Epstein's history lessons on the development of cult-TV, which rationalises the ascent of this media-format in terms of political and economic change. Allison Graham's description of the evolution of conspiracy-theory consciousness and Michele Malach's chronicle of the change in representation of the FBI-man in popular culture both provide historical detail whilst using the X-Files legitimately as subtext. This type of lateral-thinking exercise for the intelligent reader, supported by reasoned argument (and copious footnotes) is both stimulating and informative.

Less enlightening are the often partisan accounts mired in psychoanalytic theory, which can leave the lay-reader reeling from the non-intuitive terminology. A case in point is the piece by Lisa Parks which reads rather like an answer to the examination question: "Discuss Haraway's proposition of female as cyborg with reference to 'The X-Files'".

Since the breadth of material covered and implied by the X-Files as-a-series is large, it is also dismaying to see that over a third of the essays in this volume have gender as subtext. Certainly, the series has been noted for its iconoclastic representation of gender stereotypes, but one well-written overview would have sufficed, instead of four rather specialised arguments. Thankfully, the editors have seen fit to consign most of these pieces to the latter part of the book, where those of a sturdy constitution may see fit to venture. (A remark which would probably be characterised as supportive of the patriarchal Symbolic Order)

Academic essays are not ostensibly intended to entertain. They may provide a corpus of knowledge on which other academics may draw, but this cross-fertilisation is dependent on an assumed understanding of the established language. In spite of this, many of the academics represented here are also good writers; their ability to communicate clearly obviates the need to take refuge in received semiotics. For the rest, their assumptions of knowledge in this volume mirror an aspect of on-line X-philia described by Susan Clerc: "to those who have been around, Frequently Asked Questions can be extremely annoying. They want to discuss the series, not basic questions that have already been compiled and answered by dedicated fans in FAQ files. To newcomers, this attitude reeks of elitism and snobbery." Perhaps Professor Lavery should maintain an FAQ.

Overall, this is an interesting and entertaining volume, but these essays are not for everyone. The essays approach the show from a wide variety of critical angles, which I found quite intriguing. The only major problem I had with the book is that although the writers had 49 episodes to derive material from, they not only chose the same ten episodes to write about, most of them used the same quotes from those episodes. It's almost as if the writers were given these quotes and told to use them in an essay. The best essays in the volume were Leslie Jones's "'Last Week We Had an Omen,'" and Elizabeth Kubek's "'You Only Expose Your Father'"(but perhaps I say that because they were the most helpful for the paper I'm writing), but all of the essays were able to pique my interest at some level.

I hope that someone undertakes a second volume of _X-Files_ criticism soon, as some of the essays in this one are becoming rapidly out-of-date, due to developments in the show.